It seems that most of your post can be summed up by that sentence and I'm sorry but it is the single worst argument ever in these situations and it's also the single most used one.

When people start talking about the 'principle' of an idea it generally means they don't like the idea but can't thing of any rational legitimate concerns to fight it with so this becomes the default position, and it doesn't really mean anything at all.

(15-12-2012 11:37 PM)Humanist11 Wrote: As a law abiding citizen, I don't want to feel like I'm always being watched. I don't deserve it.

Sorry but another terrible criticism. You might know you're law abiding but how does anyone else? How do you know I am? You can't. The point is these sort of devices are partly for differentiating between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens. It's impossible to only use them against law breakers.

I'd also like to ask that, as a law abiding citizen, exactly what detriment is it to you to have these sort of devices in public places?

So, the government must *assume* that all of its citizens are criminals who want to get away with stuff, then forcibly *prevent* them by monitoring their every move. If there's no good argument against it as you claim, advance me an argument for it ? You will prevent... terrorist attacks. By allowing people you don't know from Adam access to every part and particle of your life ? No thanks. How do you know to trust the man behind the camera ?

(18-12-2012 12:13 AM)morondog Wrote: So, the government must *assume* that all of its citizens are criminals who want to get away with stuff, then forcibly *prevent* them by monitoring their every move. If there's no good argument against it as you claim, advance me an argument for it ? You will prevent... terrorist attacks. By allowing people you don't know from Adam access to every part and particle of your life ? No thanks. How do you know to trust the man behind the camera ?

The Government should operate in a similar way to the public. No-one in their right mind assumes everyone they meet is a totally decent guy until proven otherwise, that's why you lock you house when you're out, you are wary of people you don't know until you can form a judgement. Government should be the same. As I said, surveillance devices are partially for determining whether someone is law abiding or not so by that very definition it's impossible to only use them on known law breakers, it defeats the purpose.

I also think that saying a system could be abused is not a good reason to abolish it, it's a good reason to build in safeguards. Like I've already said, the police, army, and healthcare system could be abused but no-one wants rid of them, we build in safeguards.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

(18-12-2012 12:13 AM)morondog Wrote: So, the government must *assume* that all of its citizens are criminals who want to get away with stuff, then forcibly *prevent* them by monitoring their every move. If there's no good argument against it as you claim, advance me an argument for it ? You will prevent... terrorist attacks. By allowing people you don't know from Adam access to every part and particle of your life ? No thanks. How do you know to trust the man behind the camera ?

The Government should operate in a similar way to the public. No-one in their right mind assumes everyone they meet is a totally decent guy until proven otherwise, that's why you lock you house when you're out, you are wary of people you don't know until you can form a judgement. Government should be the same. As I said, surveillance devices are partially for determining whether someone is law abiding or not so by that very definition it's impossible to only use them on known law breakers, it defeats the purpose.

I also think that saying a system could be abused is not a good reason to abolish it, it's a good reason to build in safeguards. Like I've already said, the police, army, and healthcare system could be abused but no-one wants rid of them, we build in safeguards.

The police, army etc have a clear need demonstrated for them.

Re surveillance systems:
1. why are they necessary ?
2. what built in safeguards are in place to prevent abuse ?

I'm not saying you have to be an expert to answer here, but I'm a lot less at ease with this. If anywhere I lived were introducing this, I'd want a straight answer out of whichever politician was pushing for it, if such a thing is possible.

We haven't needed them before, now all of a sudden they're essential, as essential as the police and justice system ? Are countries who're so uncivilised as not to have them so very much worse off for the lack ?

(18-12-2012 06:46 AM)morondog Wrote: The police, army etc have a clear need demonstrated for them.

Re surveillance systems:
1. why are they necessary ?
2. what built in safeguards are in place to prevent abuse ?

I'm not saying you have to be an expert to answer here, but I'm a lot less at ease with this. If anywhere I lived were introducing this, I'd want a straight answer out of whichever politician was pushing for it, if such a thing is possible.

We haven't needed them before, now all of a sudden they're essential, as essential as the police and justice system ? Are countries who're so uncivilised as not to have them so very much worse off for the lack ?

They are useful as they could be used to great effect to monitor people suspected of criminal activity. They could also be invaluable in ascertaining what has happened if certain crimes take place near them.

Off the top of my head I would say potential safeguards could be that only authorised people could access the data and misuse could be a criminal offence.

To be honest though, I don't really see how it's much different to CCTV and most people don't get upset about that.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

(18-12-2012 06:54 AM)Hughsie Wrote: Off the top of my head I would say potential safeguards could be that only authorised people could access the data and misuse could be a criminal offence.

Remember we were discussing a situation where the government is bad. So making it a criminal offence isn't going to scare them - they're the one's who determine if the data has been misused after all. Do you agree that there is potential for this being a good tool for an authoritarian regime to have ?

(18-12-2012 07:23 AM)morondog Wrote: Remember we were discussing a situation where the government is bad. So making it a criminal offence isn't going to scare them - they're the one's who determine if the data has been misused after all. Do you agree that there is potential for this being a good tool for an authoritarian regime to have ?

Absolutely. I'm sure Hitler wouldda loved it. But the same can be said for most tools at the Government's disposal, plenty of which only came about in the last 40 years or so which proves life can go on without them.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

Our (American) system of government has a great many safeguards against abuse and the amassing of power, AS LONG AS THE CITIZENS STAY VIGILANT. Asking our news media to cover the government instead of which teen couple just broke up, and being willing to spend our time and mental energy on what's happening in the world is important.

We have become a bit lazy, but let's assume it is much worse. The problem is not that the government or any authority sees crime, it's that it sees POTENTIAL crime; using what could be as evidence of what has been.

This is the problem whether the government is trustworthy or not. And we must be careful of the slippery slope fallacy here. Looking at potential bad is important, but weighing it against what is likely is equally important.

Being recorded in a public place is a mostly non-issue since anyone could be just as easily overheard by a nosy neighbor or plain-clothed cop. But a person overhearing something cannot be later analyzed by computers picking apart each wavelength or cut together out-of-context in a new story.

Saying "I could kill him," to my sister when talking about my son's habit of writing his name on things (everything, all the time, with a sharpie) taken out of context could be "evidence" of an intent to kill my town's mayor if I was standing too close and failed to stop his suicide.

See? The Slippery Slope of Silliness.

Security vs privacy is always a delicate balance, esp. when we add 21st century tech to the mix. But honestly, humans have always preferred risky freedom to safe servitude, just watch how often each civilization endergoes rebellion/revolution.

It seems that most of your post can be summed up by that sentence and I'm sorry but it is the single worst argument ever in these situations and it's also the single most used one.

When people start talking about the 'principle' of an idea it generally means they don't like the idea but can't thing of any rational legitimate concerns to fight it with so this becomes the default position, and it doesn't really mean anything at all.

Seems that out of my lengthy post, with several good reasons on why that stuff is a bad idea you pick the one that you don't like but ignore the rest. Seems almost religious to me.
Plus I am pretty sure I have not written "this is about principle" before, at least I can't remember.
For many it might be a lazy argument, for me it isn't. I gave enough explanation on why this is bad. It is. But if you like having watched your every move by those who make up all the laws as well, so be it.

(19-12-2012 05:38 PM)Leela Wrote: Seems that out of my lengthy post, with several good reasons on why that stuff is a bad idea you pick the one that you don't like but ignore the rest. Seems almost religious to me.
Plus I am pretty sure I have not written "this is about principle" before, at least I can't remember.
For many it might be a lazy argument, for me it isn't. I gave enough explanation on why this is bad. It is. But if you like having watched your every move by those who make up all the laws as well, so be it.

To go into more detail it seems to me that your original post had reasons that fall into three categories; the principle aka. right to privacy, it could be abused, there's no advantage. I'm sorry I only responded to the first one originally, I have subsequently covered the other two in my replies to Morondog.

The "this is about principle" comment came directly from your last post, I didn't even write it, just removed the rest of the text from around it.

I'm not happy or unhappy at being watched. I really don't care either way. As a law abiding person it makes no difference to me. However what I am happy about is the knowledge that people who do want to break the law are being watched, I'm even happier to think that if I am the victim of a crime there may be solid evidence of what happened somewhere for the police to find and the courts to see.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....BestFerdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.WorstFerdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.

And if the crime happens because someone has access to the details of your life on camera ? *How* do you know that the guy who watches the tapes is not a criminal ? Because you'd make it illegal to be a bad guy ? Like I said, exposing details of my private life is not an option. If that's what it takes to catch the baddies then a percentage of the baddies must remain uncaught.